Saturnino vs. Paulino

The right of legal redemption among co-heirs under Article 1067 of the Civil Code of Spain (Article 1088 of the Civil Code of the Philippines) accrues from the moment of the decedent's death and may be exercised before partition, provided it is done within one month from the time the co-heirs were informed of the sale. Property sold by an heir to a stranger before the institution of testate proceedings, and remaining in the buyer's possession, is not in custodia legis.

Jaime Luz Paulino died on February 10, 1937, survived by his children Timoteo, Esteban, Macario, and Feliza, all surnamed Luz Paulino, and his grandson Quirico L. Saturnino, the son of his deceased daughter Antonia Luz Paulino. Among the properties he left was a house and lot in Barrio No. 13, Laoag, Ilocos Norte, identified as Lot No. 11366 of the Laoag Cadastre. The Civil Code of Spain was in force at the time of his death, and its provisions on succession governed the transmission of hereditary rights. The decedent's will, later probated on July 6, 1949, provided that the disputed property be distributed share and share alike among the heirs.

Jaime Luz Paulino died on February 10, 1937, survived by his children — Timoteo, Esteban, Macario, and Feliza, all surnamed Luz Paulino — and his grandson Quirico L. Saturnino, son of his deceased daughter Antonia Luz Paulino. Among the properties he left was a house and lot in Barrio No. 13, Laoag, Ilocos Norte, more particularly known as Lot No. 11366 of the Laoag Cadastre. On October 22, 1945, Feliza Luz Paulino executed a deed of absolute sale of the property in favor of the spouses Maximo Daleja and Juana Lucas, and Nemesio Lucas and Donata Guillermo, for the aggregate sum of P1,200.00.

Saturnino, who according to him learned of the sale in the early morning of October 23, 1945, sought to exercise his right of subrogation as co-heir of the vendor. On October 23 and again on October 29, 1945, in the presence and with the assistance of his lawyer, he offered verbally and in writing to the vendees to return then and there, in actual cash, 4/5 of the purchase price together with the expenses incurred in the preparation of the deed of sale, and tendered to them at their respective houses in Laoag written copies of the offer and the money in actual cash. The vendees Juana Lucas and Donata Guillermo, for themselves and in representation of their absent husbands, refused acceptance. On October 30, 1945, Saturnino instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, docketed as Civil Case No. 23, depositing with the Clerk of Court the sum of P960 for reimbursement to the vendees and P50 to cover expenses of the deed of sale, and praying that the sale be declared illegal as to one-fifth of the lot, that the defendants accept reimbursement, execute a deed of reconveyance, and pay damages.

The defendants answered with a counterclaim, alleging that on April 25, 1937, all the inheritance from the decedent had been divided in accordance with Section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the last verbal wish of the decedent, giving the residential lot and house to Feliza as her exclusive share, with the brothers and nephew dividing the agricultural lands among themselves. The vendees further alleged they had bought the lot to erect a camarin for a rice mill and warehouse, and that their inability to realize this plan due to Saturnino's action would cause P3,000 in yearly damages. On November 19, 1945, Saturnino filed a separate petition for probate of the will of Jaime Luz Paulino, docketed as Special Proceeding Case No. 37. Although the other heirs initially objected, they withdrew their opposition, and the will was probated by order dated July 6, 1949; it provided that the disputed property be distributed share and share alike among the heirs. On March 10, 1950, the defendants filed a supplemental answer alleging that Saturnino had no legal capacity to sue because the property was part of the estate in Case No. 37, where an administrator had been appointed but no adjudication had yet been made.

The CFI rendered judgment on December 2, 1950, declaring the sale null and void as to one-fifth of the lot, declaring Saturnino owner of that undivided share, ordering the defendants to receive P960 from the Clerk of Court and execute a deed of reconveyance. On appeal, the Court of Appeals declined to rule on the assigned errors, instead finding a "prejudicial question": that the properties were in custodia legis, subject to pending testate proceedings, and that pending partition or adjudication, no heir could claim any portion of the estate, the right of inheritance being "in the nature of hope." The Court of Appeals reversed the CFI and dismissed the complaint. Saturnino then filed the present petition for review by certiorari.

• Transmission of Hereditary Rights: Petitioner maintained that under Article 657 of the Civil Code of Spain, the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death, and under Article 661, heirs succeed to the deceased in all his rights and obligations by the mere fact of his death, so that he was an heir entitled to exercise his rights as such from the moment of the decedent's death.
• Right of Redemption Before Partition: Petitioner argued that the right of redemption under Article 1067 of the Civil Code of Spain (Article 1088 of the Civil Code of the Philippines) may be exercised only before partition, and that he had tendered reimbursement within the one-month period from the time he was informed of the sale.
• Property Not in Custodia Legis: Petitioner contended that the property was not in custodia legis because it had been sold on October 22, 1945, almost a month before Special Proceeding Case No. 37 was instituted on November 19, 1945, and the buyers had remained in possession throughout, with neither the probate court nor the judicial administrator ever seeking to divest them.

• Prior Partition by Agreement: Respondents argued that on April 25, 1937, the heirs had divided the inheritance in accordance with Section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the decedent's last verbal wish, giving the house and lot to Feliza as her exclusive share, and that Saturnino had ratified this agreement.
• Lack of Legal Capacity to Sue: Respondents contended that Saturnino had no legal capacity to sue because the property was part of the estate subject to testate proceedings in Case No. 37, where an administrator had been appointed but no adjudication had been made.
• Property in Custodia Legis: Respondents maintained that the properties were in custodia legis, being subject to pending testate proceedings, and that pending partition or adjudication, no heir could claim any portion of the estate.

• Transmission of Hereditary Rights: Whether the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the decedent's death, such that an heir may exercise rights as such before partition.
• Right of Redemption Among Co-Heirs: Whether the right of legal redemption among co-heirs under Article 1067 of the Civil Code of Spain may be exercised before partition.
• Custodia Legis: Whether the property sold by an heir before the institution of testate proceedings, and remaining in the buyer's possession, is in custodia legis.

• Transmission of Hereditary Rights: Yes. Under Article 657 of the Civil Code of Spain, the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death, and under Article 661, heirs succeed to the deceased in all his rights and obligations by the mere fact of death.
• Right of Redemption Among Co-Heirs: Yes. The right of redemption under Article 1067 may be exercised only before partition, within one month from the time the co-heirs were informed of the sale; after adjudication, heirs become co-owners, not co-heirs, and may redeem only under a different provision.
• Custodia Legis: No. The property was sold on October 22, 1945, almost a month before the testate proceeding was instituted on November 19, 1945, and the buyers remained in possession, with neither the probate court nor the judicial administrator ever seeking to divest them.

• Transmission of Hereditary Rights: The Civil Code of Spain was in force at the time of Jaime Luz Paulino's death on February 10, 1937. Article 657 provides that "the rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of his death," and Article 661 provides that heirs "succeed to the deceased in all his rights and obligations by the mere fact of his death." The person concerned is therefore an heir and may exercise his rights as such from the very moment of the decedent's death. The Court of Appeals erred in characterizing the right of inheritance as merely "in the nature of hope" pending partition; the right is vested upon death.

• Right of Redemption Among Co-Heirs: Article 1067 of the Civil Code of Spain (Article 1088 of the Civil Code of the Philippines) explicitly provides that if an heir sells his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing the purchase price, provided it is done within one month from the time they were informed thereof. The Court emphasized that the right of redemption among co-heirs may be exercised only before partition. After adjudication, the character of the right changes: if property is adjudicated to one heir alone, the adjudication partakes of a partition, and the other heirs are neither co-heirs nor co-owners; if adjudicated pro-indiviso to several heirs, they become co-owners, not co-heirs, and may redeem only under Article 1522 of the Civil Code of Spain (Article 1620 of the Civil Code of the Philippines). Citing Manresa, the Court noted that after partition, the abstract hereditary right is replaced by the specific things or rights comprised in the adjudication, and the community in the inheritance ceases. Saturnino's tender of reimbursement on October 23 and 29, 1945, fell within the one-month period from his learning of the sale.

• Custodia Legis: The house and lot were sold by Feliza on October 22, 1945, almost a month before Special Proceeding Case No. 37 was instituted on November 19, 1945. At the time of the sale, the buyers took possession and retained it. The judicial administrator in Case No. 37 was appointed only after the probate of the will on July 6, 1949, and neither the probate court nor the administrator ever sought to divest the buyers of possession. Had the administrator wished to take custody of the property, he would have had to institute a separate civil action. The property was therefore not in custodia legis, and the Court of Appeals' premise was factually erroneous.

• Vesting of Hereditary Rights Upon Death — Under Article 657 of the Civil Code of Spain (and its successor provisions), the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the decedent's death; under Article 661, heirs succeed to all rights and obligations of the deceased by the mere fact of death. The heir may exercise rights as such immediately, without waiting for partition or adjudication. The Court applied this to reject the Court of Appeals' view that the right of inheritance is merely "in the nature of hope" pending partition.

• Right of Legal Redemption Among Co-Heirs (Retractio Successoria) — Under Article 1067 of the Civil Code of Spain (Article 1088 of the Civil Code of the Philippines), if an heir sells his hereditary rights to a stranger before partition, any or all co-heirs may be subrogated to the purchaser's rights by reimbursing the purchase price, provided this is done within one month from the time they were informed of the sale. The right exists only before partition; after adjudication, the relationship among heirs changes to co-ownership, and redemption must be sought under the provisions governing co-owners (Article 1522 of the Civil Code of Spain / Article 1620 of the Civil Code of the Philippines).

• Custodia Legis in Estate Property — Property is not in custodia legis merely because testate proceedings are pending, if the property was sold and transferred to buyers before the testate proceeding was instituted and the buyers have remained in possession, with neither the probate court nor the judicial administrator having sought to recover it. To take custody of such property, the administrator must institute a separate civil action.

• "the rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of his death" — This quotation from Article 657 of the Civil Code of Spain, as applied by the Court, establishes the foundational principle that hereditary rights vest upon death, not upon partition or adjudication, and forms the ratio decidendi for rejecting the Court of Appeals' "nature of hope" theory.

• "If either of the heirs should sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of his co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the purchase price, provided it be done within the period of one month, to be counted from the time they were informed thereof." — This is the text of Article 1067 of the Civil Code of Spain (Article 1088 of the Civil Code of the Philippines), quoted by the Court to establish that the right of redemption among co-heirs is explicitly limited to the period before partition and must be exercised within one month from notice of the sale.

• "Said property was sold by Feliza Luz Paulino to Maximo Daleja, Juana Lucas, Nemesio Lucas and Donata Guillermo on October 22, 1945, or almost a month before Special Proceeding Case No. 37 was instituted (November 19, 1945)." — This factual finding by the Court dismantled the Court of Appeals' custodia legis theory, establishing that the property was never under the custody of the probate court because it had been sold and possessed by buyers before the testate proceeding even began.

• Manresa, Comentarios al Código Civil Español — The Court cited Manresa's commentary on Article 1067 to support the proposition that the sale of hereditary rights must occur before partition, because after partition the abstract hereditary right is replaced by the specific things or rights in the adjudication, the community in the inheritance ceases, and a different form of redemption (not the special one under Article 1067) may apply.

• Article 657, Civil Code of Spain — Provides that "the rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of his death." Applied to establish that hereditary rights vest immediately upon death, not upon partition or adjudication.

• Article 661, Civil Code of Spain — Provides that heirs "succeed to the deceased in all his rights and obligations by the mere fact of his death." Applied to confirm that an heir may exercise rights as such from the moment of death.

• Article 1067, Civil Code of Spain (Article 1088, Civil Code of the Philippines) — Governs the right of legal redemption among co-heirs: if an heir sells his hereditary rights to a stranger before partition, co-heirs may subrogate the purchaser's rights by reimbursing the purchase price within one month from notice. Applied to uphold Saturnino's right to redeem his co-heir's sale to strangers, exercised before partition and within the statutory period.

• Article 1522, Civil Code of Spain (Article 1620, Civil Code of the Philippines) — Governs redemption among co-owners. Distinguished from Article 1067: after adjudication pro-indiviso, heirs become co-owners and may redeem only under this provision, not as co-heirs.

• Rules 78, 79, and 80, Rules of Court — Cited to establish the procedural timeline for the appointment of a judicial administrator, which could only occur after probate of the will (July 6, 1949), further supporting the conclusion that the property was not in custodia legis at the time of the sale.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concurred.